Evidence of meeting #53 for Science and Research in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was faculty.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
I'll now turn to Mr. Houlden.
You talked about how ISED could lead this program of assessing the risks, with CSIS and GAC also involved. Can you elaborate on the capacity of ISED to do that? You felt that they could take that on, but what is needed and what sort of information would they have to gather?
5:05 p.m.
Professor and Director Emeritus, University of Alberta - China Institute
Thank you, Mr. Cannings. I must note that I am actually speaking from your home riding in Penticton at this moment. I am one of your constituents.
Your question is important. ISED is engaged in this process and has staffed up a lot of new people. I met many of them when I was in Ottawa. It is also putting funding into the major research universities to create research security positions, which are funded both by the university and by Ottawa and are often staffed by people with security backgrounds, including some from CSIS. It's a huge step forward. What a different place from where we were.
However, what I'm still waiting for is a list of problematic institutions abroad—some of these will be Chinese and some of these will be Iranian or Russian—and a list of problematic areas. The tricky thing is that those areas are constantly changing. That which is cutting-edge and potentially dual-use today may be commonplace and in everything you touch in a few days, so that work must proceed at pace.
The other problem, which I identified in my research for the Government of Alberta, is that while the federal government and ISED.... The Government of Canada controls the funding that flows to researchers, but the provinces control the universities by power of the purse. There must be, in my view, a very close collaboration between the provincial and federal governments facilitating a common approach, because otherwise you have this powerful university that may or may not take advice from the federal government, and the federal government has.... I believe the federal funding for research in the universities—I'm guessing here—is in the range of about 20%. The bulk of the funding comes from the university itself.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
Thank you very much.
I left a little bit of extra time because of the reaction of the committee to your being a constituent. It's always good to have constituents in the room. I mean, everybody is somebody's constituent.
Michelle Rempel Garner, welcome to our committee. It's great to have you here. With your experience, I look forward to your being a member of the committee.
You have five minutes, please.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Chair.
The way I'd like to spend my time.... Just quickly, by way of background, I did manage the sponsored research portfolio of a major Canadian university. When Dr. Fung talks about the research services office, that used to be this girl here.
I'd like to try to encapsulate some of the recommendations and common themes that have come up in testimony and then get some validation on whether or not we're thinking about this the right way. I think in Canada there are a couple of frameworks that could be applied to the principles you're talking about, and they're not necessarily related.
First of all, there's the integrity regime within procurement, as well as the safe third country agreement. Those two have commonalities in that they are country-agnostic. They're entity-agnostic. The government has set a list of guidelines by which it will do business in procurement, and whether or not, and how, it would apply refugee status.
Would you recommend that any approach that the federal government takes be country-agnostic and focus on quantitative, objective metrics in terms of engagement with countries and entities, and that the list should be evaluated on, let's say, an annual or regular basis?
Go ahead, Dr. Fung.
5:10 p.m.
Canada Research Chair and Professor, McGill University, Alliance Canada Hong Kong
I agree that there should be a country-agnostic approach. Yes, there should be some metrics for measuring, but sometimes, you know, for information, that is not sufficient.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
For sure.
Go ahead, Cherie. That's my sister's name, and with the same spelling, too.
5:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Alliance Canada Hong Kong
Yes, country-agnostic is really important. The entity based on conduct, based on activities that the particular entity has taken on, I do agree that has to be re-evaluated. Once state entities catch on that you're catching on to them, they change their name and they change their affiliation. It needs to evolve with the challenges we're going to face.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
So an ongoing review of eligibility should be a key recommendation for our committee. Okay.
The other thing is that the federal government has tabled national security guidelines for research partnerships. I think that gets us maybe 10% of the way we need to go on this issue. It strikes me that there aren't any enforcement criteria or enforcement rules in this set of guidelines. Do you think any eligibility criteria that the federal government ties to either federal research funding or support for research partnerships should have some enforcement criteria if rules are broken, yes or no?
Dr. Fung?
5:10 p.m.
Canada Research Chair and Professor, McGill University, Alliance Canada Hong Kong
Sure. Yes.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you.
The other thing I know is that right now, where we're at is that there really isn't a way for Canadian universities to determine, in an ever-changing landscape, what the rules are. I would argue that it's actually impossible for a research services office to make that determination. Do you think it would be an appropriate role for the federal government to take on and develop a list of both countries and entities that are engaging in research partnerships with institutions the federal government would give any support to, which would be subject to a set of rules and regulations designed to safeguard things like national security, prevent intellectual property theft, and the safety of Canadians—that list could be augmented—and that prescribed controls or safeguards would need to be in place prior to federal funding being allocated to that type of partnership, with that system then being evaluated on an ongoing basis?
Is that where your thinking is at for a framework that the government should be developing?
5:10 p.m.
Canada Research Chair and Professor, McGill University, Alliance Canada Hong Kong
Yes. Sure.
5:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Alliance Canada Hong Kong
Yes, that would be the ideal way we could move forward.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
That's amazing.
Do you think it's important for the granting councils, such as NSERC, CIHR, CFI, etc., that this type of framework be inserted into their eligibility criteria for institutional eligibility once it's put together by the federal government, yes or no?
5:15 p.m.
Canada Research Chair and Professor, McGill University, Alliance Canada Hong Kong
Yes.
5:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Alliance Canada Hong Kong
I've never actually submitted a tri-council research grant, so I would not be at liberty to say.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Institutional eligibility is important. In a framework, I think there needs to be some tie-in to institutional eligibility.
With the “National Security Guidelines for Research Partnerships”, do you think the government needs to significantly augment that particular document, given that it doesn't have these enforcement timelines?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
You are actually over time at this point.
Thank you, both, and thank you for the questions.
Now we'll go to Lena Metlege Diab for five minutes, please.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to our witnesses for being here.
We're talking about research, and obviously our committee was founded on the science and research agenda because we recognize how important research is to Canada. We're also talking about universities. Before I became a federal parliamentarian, I was a provincial member in my own province. I recognize the significance and the importance of the provinces and the role they play with universities and colleges in each of the provinces.
Professor Fung, you are from McGill. With respect to the Province of Quebec, obviously there's a lot of autonomy and independence in how it deals with its own educational system. Can you tell me how Quebec, for example, the provincial government there, works with universities to inform and disseminate information to your institution or your researchers about the risks? What role do you see provinces having vis-à-vis Canada, for example?
5:15 p.m.
Canada Research Chair and Professor, McGill University, Alliance Canada Hong Kong
The provincial [Inaudible—Editor] also has research funding that we can apply for. Sometimes a foreign enterprise may try to approach a professor to apply for a grant, like one from NSERC, so the same level of security, just like for the research security centre, should be enforced at the provincial level. That's what I would say.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS
Ms. Wong, you are a graduate student, and you are here in Ottawa. What have you seen in your graduate work, based on your personal experience and what other professors or students have shared with you?